In article <01bc4662$fe880e40$294192cf at mycomputer>,
Joe Potter <joe.potter at worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>Richard M Kliman <rkliman at runet.edu> wrote in article
><5ilh1k$c5r at ruacad.runet.edu>...
>> In article <01bc43ae$4b8c7d00$a84992cf at mycomputer>,
>> Joe Potter <joe.potter at worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> > And more to the point, why sex (mixing your genes 50/50) if the whole
>> >point of evolution revolves around a struggle to leave as many copies of
>> >you genes as possible. Heck, you do not leave even one!!!
>>>> Who said there's a point to evolution?
>>>> You seem to be asking how sex can provide for one leaving more copies of
>> one's genes (actually, a disproportionate amount of one's genes) than
>> clonal reproduction. Passing on many copies of one's genes does not
>> guarantee that one will disproportionately influence future gene pools.
>> The carriers of one's genes must also be disproportionately successful
>> offspring producers. Again, I any decent college-level evolution text
>> explains why sexual reproduction is expected to be favored in certain
>> contexts.
> Rich, you seem to have missed some part of the thread. I pointed out
>(earlier) that Dr. Eldrege called sex a paradox from the ultra-Darwinist
>(his words, not mine) point of view.
>> He is saying that sex makes no sense if Dawkins position is correct that
>evolution is simply the struggle to leave more copies of one's own genes.
>This is from his 1995 book, last chapter.
I'm confused. I thought the point of this thread was to discuss possible
explanantions for the persistence of sexual reproduction in the face a
presumed cost to the female. If the point of this thread is to argue the
merits of Eldredge's book or Dawkins' "ultra-Darwinist" viewpoint, then
fine. If Eldredge argues that sex makes no sense in the context of
Dawkins' argument, then either (1) Eldrege is wrong - sex is compatible
with Dawkins - or (2) Dawkins is wrong. Either way, this has little to do
with the origin and maintenance of sex - i.e., the actual study of
evolution. Neither Eldredge nor Dawkins - regardless of their collective
contributions to evolutionary biology - should serve as a focus for
discussions on the evolution of sex.
So what *is* the point to this thread?
Rich Kliman
Dept. of Biology
Radford University
